Campbell v. State, 8 Div. 315
| Decision Date | 12 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 315 |
| Citation | 484 So.2d 1168 |
| Parties | William Charlie CAMPBELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Gary W. Alverson, Tuscumbia, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and David B. Karn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant William Campbell was convicted by a Colbert County jury of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The facts in this case are worth reciting.
Two Muscle Shoals police officers on routine patrol observed a peculiarly dressed man in the parking lot of a convenience store. They pulled into the lot and continued to observe the man, who, although it was a warm night, had on coveralls and a toboggan cap. As they watched, he pulled the toboggan cap down over his face as a mask and entered the store. He pointed a shiny object in his hand, which appeared to be a gun, at the clerk. The man then took money from the cash register and placed it in his pocket, went to the back of the store and returned seconds later with another store employee. The two of them stooped behind the counter and the man came up with what appeared to be money bags. Both employees then lay down on the floor, but one of them jumped up and ran out the door. At this point another police car arrived on the scene and its headlights drew the attention of the man. As he ran to the back of the store, the other employee ran out the front door. Officer Nesbitt, using a loud speaker, told the man to throw his gun down and lie down on the floor. They observed him to run to the potato chip rack on the second aisle and then come back to the front of the store and lie down on the floor. They entered, handcuffed him, and told him he was under arrest. The gun was retrieved from the potato chip rack. The robbery had occurred within their clear view through the plate glass window of the store. The reason for getting the second employee from the back was to have her open the safe, from which two money bags were removed.
Appellant contends first that the trial court committed reversible error in not ordering a psychiatric examination for him before trial. The applicable Alabama statute, § 15-16-21, Code of Alabama 1975, provides as follows:
In Whorton v. State, 422 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), this court stated:
"Moreover, in the absence of any evidence, the mere allegations by counsel that the accused is incompetent to stand trial do not establish 'reasonable fround to doubt [defendant's] sanity' which would warrant an inquiry into his competency."
We held in Livingston v. State, 419 So.2d 270 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), that the determination of whether a reasonable doubt of sanity exists is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and may be raised on appeal only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. The court remembered Campbell from an earlier lengthy trial and recalled that Campbell was "perfectly capable at that time in assisting his counsel." The judge further stated that it was his understanding that Campbell had been in federal custody ever since that prior trial.
The United States Supreme Court in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), addressed the issue of when constitutional due process requires that a trial court provide a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...699 So.2d 965, 966 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). See also Martin v. State, 51 Ala.App. 405, 286 So.2d 80, 84 (1973). "`In Campbell v. State, 484 So.2d 1168, 1170 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), this Court concluded that no abuse of discretion resulted from the trial court's requirement that the appellant be handcu......
-
Nelson v. State
...will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of that discretion. Holmes v. State, 497 So.2d 1149 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Campbell v. State, 484 So.2d 1168 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). We find no abuse here in the trial court's discretion in denying the Appellant contends that his constitutional rights we......
-
McWilliams v. State
...appeared before the jury in handcuffs when this appearance was only a part of going to and from the courtroom"). Campbell v. State, 484 So.2d 1168, 1170 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (wherein the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jury to see the defendant rest......
-
Snyder v. State
...699 So.2d 965, 966 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). See also Martin v. State, 51 Ala.App. 405, 286 So.2d 80, 84 (1973). "In Campbell v. State, 484 So.2d 1168, 1170 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), this Court concluded that no abuse of discretion resulted from the trial court's requirement that the appellant be handcuf......